Talk:Al-Muktafi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 22:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review on this one. Skimmed through it and overall looks good. Will try to do a detailed review today. HaEr48 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article passes most of the criteria with ease. It is well-written with clear prose and correct spelling and grammar, compliant with the GA-required MoS’ses. All non-lead paragraphs are well cited, list of references are provided, and inline citations are provided for most statements required by criteria 2a (see detailed comments below for some missing inline citation), and no original research. Covers the main aspects of the topic (basically, events of his life and his legacy), written in a neutral form and stable from edit wars. Illustrated with appropriate images and no copyright issue was found.

Some specific comments:

Why is the article title "Al-Muktafi" instead of the full regnal name Al-Muktafi billah? Is it common to drop the second part?
- Yes, that is common practice in all Western languages that I know of. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The imprisoned Saffarid ruler, Amr ibn al-Layth, was executed." Could we use active voice or indicate who ordered this execution? Looking at the context it's probably the vizier, but it's better to be explicit, I think. Same for other people getting purged in the same paragraph: Badr al-Mu'tadidi, Abd al-Wahid, al-Husayn ibn Amr al-Nasrani
- Done in part, to avoid the constant repetition of "al-Qasim". Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you describe who Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Kundajiq and Mu'nis al-Khadim are? e.g. by naming their position or title
- Done. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same for these people you quoted by name: Al-Tabari, Michael Bonner, Harold Bowen. What are their titles/affiliations? (I know al-Tabari is a well-known historian, but might as well ...)
- Done. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you describe what Sahib al-shurta means? It seems to be a title, but the link redirects to Shurta which was an organization.
- Done. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per GA criteria, could you add inline citation on these specific numbers: : “some 20,000 were reportedly killed”; “a major Byzantine army, allegedly 100,000 strong,” as well as this slightly counterintuitive statement: “most of the actual conduct of government was left to his viziers and officials.”
- Done on the first, the second is clearly attributed to Tabari, and thereby linked to the reference at the end of the section. On the latter, it essentially sums up the "On the other hand, he was..." section. As the reign was dominated by his vizier, it is clear that Muktafi himself was not a hands-on ruler. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Byzantine front" section: Could you clarify how Leo of Tripoli's campaign was related to the caliph? Was Leo under orders from the Caliph?
- Done. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"including the capture of Qurus (Cyrrhus) in July 906". Could you clarify which side captured Cyrrhus?
- Done. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Death and legacy" section: Clarify that al-Muqtadir was the same guy as the caliph’s brother Ja’far
- Done. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who was Abdallah ibn al-Mu'tazz (another candidate for sucession)? Did he hold any post or were related to the caliph’s family?
- Done. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you consider adding some background to the events described in the biography? e.g. how the Qarmatians rose to prominence, how come Egypt was lost, and perhaps general description of the previous caliph's rule and his "cruelty" mentioned in Al-Muktafi's article?
- Sure, give me a few days. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it was a very informative and enjoyable article. I even feel bad when reading that after all that accomplishments a weak caliph would take the crown.. Congratulations for your work! HaEr48 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot HaEr48 for taking the time to review this, and for your thoughtful suggestions. I've (hopefully) fixed most of the issues you raised, I'll have another look over the weekend to add some context here and there. Best, Constantine ✍ 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response, Constantine, and your updates look good. Looking forward to your next update adding context. HaEr48 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any news here, Constantine? HaEr48 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaEr48, sorry, I got a bit sidetracked with my other projects in WP :). I will work on it over the next few days, though. Best, Constantine ✍ 17:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaEr48!. Concerning the Qarmatians, I don't know what exactly I could add. They had the advantage of using the Bedouin, and fighting against the Tulunids, who were nearing collapse, and the Abbasids, who were facing dangers all around and barely could afford to concentrate on one front at a time. Analyzing this is well beyond the scope of this article, however. I did add a bit more context on the sectarian milieu of the time, however, showing that the Qarmatians were not an isolated phenomenon. I have added more information on the situation of the Caliphate during al-Muktafi's early life, and the deeds of his father and grandfather; I've also moved the bureaucratic factions up, since they emerged under al-Mu'tadid. I think that context-wise, the article can now stand on its own two feet. Any further suggestions? Constantine ✍ 09:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great update. Constantine. I agree, now the article sufficiently explains the context of the events in al-Muktafi's life. About Qarmatian, I'm not asking for an analysis for the Qarmatians' rise, I was thinking more of "what events bring them to power?", which your update more than answered. I took another look at the article, I can't think of any major suggestions. Given that and the passing of the GA criteria, I will pass this nomination and update accordingly. Congratulations and thanks for the high quality interesting article! HaEr48 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once more for taking the time, and for the valuable suggestions, that have led to some major improvements! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]